How does the 2004 presidential election play out without 9/11 and the war on terror? Who is the Democratic nominee in this scenario? Does Bush get re elected, or does he suffer the fate his father did in 1992? If he does get re elected, does he do better or worse than OTL? If he loses, how badly is he defeated? What is Bush's first term as President like without the attack?
2004 US Presidential election without 9/11
- Thread starter dw93
- Start date
Hard to say - on the one hand, without 9/11, Bush won't get the massive popularity he did at the time. The financial scandals of the early 2000s might get wider play and Democrats might retake Congress in '02. All this may set the stage for him getting defeated in '04, perhaps by John Edwards (John Kerry being a less likely nominee without foreign policy and national security issues dominating).
But OTOH, a middling, uncontroversial Bush presidency might make him more likely to win in '04. Incumbents typically win reelection, barring a major recession or national crisis. No 9-11 may also mean no Iraq War, meaning there won't be the backlash and polarization that drove many people to oppose Bush.
redlightning
Banned
Bush would not have achieved much in his cushy first term. He might have passed things like social security reform, education reform, deregulated the economy, and other trivial matters, but would be attacked by the Democrats as not having accomplished much. The Democrats win the White House in 2004. Although they will get the blame for the minor recession which comes when Bush's financial policies are ended.
I kind of agree with this, Bush loses in 2004 for lack of accomplishment and, in my opinion because he won't be able to shed the image of illegitimacy that he had after the 2000 election. Plus, corporate scandals (Enron in particular) will get more attention and this won't help Bush either. The Democrats win in 2004, although a recession would've happened between 2005 and 2009 whether Bush was ever President or not as the Great recession OTL was almost 3 decades in the making, but your are right a Democrat presides over it, gets blamed, and probably loses in 2008. 2004 in my opinion was kind of like 1976 or 1928, which ever party won the Presidency that year was doomed in the next Presidential election.
I doubt Bush would run again in 2008 in this scenario. If Gore didn't run again in '04 after 2000, Bush isn't running for a second non consecutive term. Plus, you have to consider that the Bushes are gonna stink of defeat in this scenario, (a loss in '92, then '04) The GOP will want to win it in 08 and keep it, which is why the 2008 GOP nomination TTL, just like OTL is going to McCain. If not McCain, Romney.
Romney would probably win in this scenario since a Democratic President like Edwards would probably jump into the whole bailout thing quite quickly, pissing off a bunch of people and if I remember correctly, Romney was the most anti-bailout person running.
I've always believed that without 9/11 the Housing Bubble would grow at a slower pace. The Fed cut interest rates sharply in response to the spike in monthly job losses that occurred right after the attack. So take away the attack and the early 2000's recession wouldn't have been as severe, so the Fed wouldn't have been as aggressive, which means the rates of borrowing for mortgages is lower than OTL, which means the bubble grows at a slower pace.
Now the Great Recession officially started in late 2007, and the US was losing jobs all through 2008, and there were a series of crisis during the year. Bear Stearns early in the year, the spike in oil and gas prices during the spring/summer, Fannie/Freddie in late summer, then Lehman and AIG in September. If the Housing bubble grows at a slower pace then we might be able to push back some or maybe even all of these events until after the election.
You could have a scenario where all the events happen after the 2008 election and the President who wins that year gets the mess dumped in their lap and their party loses huge in 2010 and 2012. You could get a scenario where some of the events happen in the second half of 2008 and cause the party of the sitting President to lose that November, but then the really big stuff goes off just after the new President gets sworn in. If people were pissed with Obama in 2010 because things were still messed up, even though all the big crisis occurred during the Bush Presidency, then how would the public react to a President where perhaps the economy started going bad under his Predecessor, but the big bankruptcies and the bailouts happened on his/her watch?
So you have to factor in how the absence of 9/11 alters the trajectory of the economy and how that changes the political situation.
Now the Great Recession officially started in late 2007, and the US was losing jobs all through 2008, and there were a series of crisis during the year. Bear Stearns early in the year, the spike in oil and gas prices during the spring/summer, Fannie/Freddie in late summer, then Lehman and AIG in September. If the Housing bubble grows at a slower pace then we might be able to push back some or maybe even all of these events until after the election.
You could have a scenario where all the events happen after the 2008 election and the President who wins that year gets the mess dumped in their lap and their party loses huge in 2010 and 2012. You could get a scenario where some of the events happen in the second half of 2008 and cause the party of the sitting President to lose that November, but then the really big stuff goes off just after the new President gets sworn in. If people were pissed with Obama in 2010 because things were still messed up, even though all the big crisis occurred during the Bush Presidency, then how would the public react to a President where perhaps the economy started going bad under his Predecessor, but the big bankruptcies and the bailouts happened on his/her watch?
So you have to factor in how the absence of 9/11 alters the trajectory of the economy and how that changes the political situation.
As for 2004, I'd expect the Democrats to win back Congress in 2002. They had been chipping away at the Republican lead in the House for the last 3 elections, and thanks to Jeffords they were able to take control of the Senate. So the 2002 election without 9/11 means the usual pattern of the Presidents party losing seats occurs, and Democrats retake the House making Dick Gephardt Speaker, and they increase their lead in the Senate. This obviously changes what Bush can get done for the rest of his first term.
Bush still has the advantage of incumbency in 2004, and the economy might not be as worse off without the spike in job losses after 9/11. I'd expect the 2004 election to still be close, but I'd still give Bush the edge. Things in the country wouldn't be great, but they also wouldn't be bad. If the Democrats nominate an uninspiring candidate it could end up as a very low turnout boring election, and that helps the Republicans hold on.
Bush still has the advantage of incumbency in 2004, and the economy might not be as worse off without the spike in job losses after 9/11. I'd expect the 2004 election to still be close, but I'd still give Bush the edge. Things in the country wouldn't be great, but they also wouldn't be bad. If the Democrats nominate an uninspiring candidate it could end up as a very low turnout boring election, and that helps the Republicans hold on.
Good point. I always thought that by 2000, it was too late to prevent or delay the collapse, after reading this, I have a new perspective. Learn something new everyday.
For me though, the economy counts, but it isn't everything. If Bush, after 2002, still pushes for things like Social Security reform, a $3 trillion tax cut, and an invasion of Iraq (if they already hadn't done it before the '02 midterms) with Democrats in control of congress and isn't willing to make compromises, 2003-2004 is going to be really ugly politically, as bad or worse than today. If you put the fact that half of the country (90% of that half being Democrats) is still going to be angry and bitter over 2000 and still see Bush as illegitimate on top of that (as bad as 9/11 was, it did briefly unify the country and give Bush's presidency legitimacy, without it, what does) , as long as the Democrats don't royally screw up, they could beat Bush in a close election, and to add another thing, the Enron scandal could also be a problem for Bush as they were his biggest campaign contributors in 2000.
TinyTartar
Banned
2004 in my view was an election defined by culture shifts. Most of the time, in recent years, the Democrats enjoy large enough majorities in Presidential years to win because of the electorate. 2004 was different BECAUSE of 9/11, that distinctly for a few years upset the sort of Liberal hold on things, like pop culture, which has always seemingly drifted left except in the aftermath of 9/11. You saw the suburbs shift right more than expected, and it was this trend that caused such a backlash with left leaning people in the entertainment industry who saw their traditional grip slightly weaken.
With no 9/11, and I think Iraq has almost nothing to do with this, Bush does not win in 2004 unless his opponent runs a horrible campaign. Bush domestically wanted to give a lot of energy to compassionate conservatism, which meant he wanted to expand the base of small business while also expanding the base of government support of people. It tied deeply into his Born Again Christian identity. This would not help Bush with his base, which was far more fiscally conservative and anti-government than he was. The only thing that helped him with his base was his religiosity and moral absolutism. His name was more of a hindrance if anything with Conservatives. I would expect the Republican effort in 2004 without a post 9/11 flag to rally around to be a low energy affair that results in a loss.
With no 9/11, and I think Iraq has almost nothing to do with this, Bush does not win in 2004 unless his opponent runs a horrible campaign. Bush domestically wanted to give a lot of energy to compassionate conservatism, which meant he wanted to expand the base of small business while also expanding the base of government support of people. It tied deeply into his Born Again Christian identity. This would not help Bush with his base, which was far more fiscally conservative and anti-government than he was. The only thing that helped him with his base was his religiosity and moral absolutism. His name was more of a hindrance if anything with Conservatives. I would expect the Republican effort in 2004 without a post 9/11 flag to rally around to be a low energy affair that results in a loss.
The economy was still bad in 2001. I don't think Bush would have turned in around.
Bush would remember what cost his dad the election in 2002 when the Dems took office, we would have had a shutdown, and Bush would be blamed and lose 2004.
The Dems lose the white House either in 2008 or 2012 when the financial meltdown happens. I don't think Edwards makes VP in 2004 without 9/11, and Edwards did an ok job on the campaign trail (he was scum, but he was competent scum)
Assuming crisis hits like OTL (no 9/11 it might be delayed), 2008 McCain wins over Romney still. No Palin. Republicans run economy into ground with austerity, we likely get American 2nd Great Depression in 2012 and I could see Obama winning in 2012 as a Warren-style economic reformer. (and 2010 would be a Dem wave yer)
America suffers more short-term pain ITTL, less long-term (the Tea Party is on the left not right- I do think Tea Party-style populism is inevitable once the downturn hits, but which way it goes depends on who is blamed for it)
Bush would remember what cost his dad the election in 2002 when the Dems took office, we would have had a shutdown, and Bush would be blamed and lose 2004.
The Dems lose the white House either in 2008 or 2012 when the financial meltdown happens. I don't think Edwards makes VP in 2004 without 9/11, and Edwards did an ok job on the campaign trail (he was scum, but he was competent scum)
Assuming crisis hits like OTL (no 9/11 it might be delayed), 2008 McCain wins over Romney still. No Palin. Republicans run economy into ground with austerity, we likely get American 2nd Great Depression in 2012 and I could see Obama winning in 2012 as a Warren-style economic reformer. (and 2010 would be a Dem wave yer)
America suffers more short-term pain ITTL, less long-term (the Tea Party is on the left not right- I do think Tea Party-style populism is inevitable once the downturn hits, but which way it goes depends on who is blamed for it)
TinyTartar
Banned
I think it might be interesting if Edwards becomes President only to have his affair explode in his face, and the Democrats have more issues of moral incompetency become household topics of discussion, like with Charlie Rangel, Blagojevich, Jesse Jackson Jr., and somehow, Anthony Weiner ascends high in the party only to suffer his OTL meltdown.
If the Democrats start getting a reputation for that kind of stuff, it might tamper activist enthusiasm. 2 Democratic Presidents in a row had their names tarnished by sex scandals would present an interesting situation where perhaps the moral majority reforms in disgust.
I to think it would be interesting if Edwards became President and that happened, but in all honesty, I think Edwards becoming President isn't all that possible (despite the fact that I might've had Edwards in a few Alternate Presidents lists I've done on here, just for the sake of completing it). Best case scenario, he becomes VP. In a no 9/11 2004 election, I think either Gephardt (who is probably Speaker by 2003 TTL) or Dean, with enough butterflies preventing the Dean scream OTL, would be the Democratic nominee, unless things go really bad for Bush, which could prompt Gore to run again.